historical_token_balances

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses defaults for boolean flags and states it returns balances as they existed historically. Does not describe output format or rate limits, but for a read operation, it is fairly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single run-on sentence that lacks clear structure. While it front-loads the core purpose, the parameter listing feels cluttered and could be broken into cleaner segments for better readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers parameter usage well but omits return structure, pagination, or limits. This leaves the agent partially informed about the response format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by summarizing required vs optional, listing parameter names, highlighting defaults, and noting mutual exclusivity of blockHeight and date. This goes beyond the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches historical token balances for an address at a given block height or date. It explicitly mentions the required and optional parameters, distinguishing it from current balance tools like 'token_balances'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies historical vs current context through name and parameter hints, and explicitly notes mutual exclusivity of blockHeight and date. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.